WE NEED A ''UNITED STATES OF AFRICA''


ONE AFRICAN NATION, with ONE central GOVT. One currency. One military.


Once that is the case, NO NATION can come into Africa ''calling the shots'' like tiny France is doing in Ivory Coast, or tiny Britain in Zimbabwe.

That Britain, a tiny island with no resources, can impose ''economic sanctions'' on Zimbabwe, a land flowing with gold, diamonds, copper, and other resources is down to one thing - the balkanization of Africa.

In a united centralized African government, NO PART of the COUNTRY of AFRICA will be under any foreign influence or tutelage.

Just like France cannot today lay claim to any region of China as its ''area of influence'', so also will Africa be FREE of such indignities.

Foreign crime committed in any part of Africa will by law be crimes committed against the nation of Africa.

Africa will instead impose economic sanctions ON any nation wishing to test its resolve by breaching its sovereignty.

Africa has the power and the resources to hold every nation on earth to ransom economically, if they step out of line, because every last one of them depends on African resources to stay afloat.

But this will not be realised until the continent becomes ONE, under a single government.

If this is deemed too complex to achieve (it isn't), then a maximum THREE STATE SOLUTION can be worked towards.

This will create entities powerful enough to resist the machinations of France, Britain, the USA, the UN, et al, in relation to Africa.

As it stands now, we are mere sitting ducks for them, as 57 balkanized ''independent'' states, each too weak on its own to resist imperialist pressures.

It doesn't have to be that way.

ROSSIKE:

WE NEED A ''UNITED STATES OF AFRICA''

Co-signed. 

Err.  What about the ones north of the Sahara Desert?  In there too?  Never mind.    Am in there!

I feel the above sentiment but its not practical. We can hardly get Nigeria to work not to talk of several "nigerias".
Great idea if it were to work, I mean Europe has merged to one union to counter China, India and the USA.

Over all a great idea not withstanding.

I support this, but not just yet. First we need to go back our pre-colonial states. Once that is done, then we can finally unite. We have to start from scratch.

Tippy Top said:

I feel the above sentiment but its not practical. We can hardly get Nigeria to work not to talk of several "nigerias",

A good reason why we ''can  hardly get Nigeria to work'' is the very balkanization of Africa we're talking about. Today, Nigeria is so weak economically, that abiding by the dictates of the IMF and other western agencies is seen as 'conventional wisdom' by the 'powers that be' in Nigeria.

You will be shocked how much our economic policies are in fact dictated by those foreign entities. For instance, we cannot impose strict protectionist policies in order to increase manufacturing and employment, because that would run counter to ''free market'' philosophies, drawing the ire of the World Bank, IMF, USA etc etc, who in turn would retaliate with sanctions or political destabilization etc etc.

Look at the power that Shell has in the country, allegedly posting spies into our govt, causing ecological disaster in the delta, under-declaring oil receipts, evading taxes and royalties of various kinds through various schemes, 

Shell could not do that  under a centralized African government, any more than she can try such a thing in any region of China today.

Had China been divided into say 50 'independent' nations, Shell could easily 'colonize' one of those 'nations' like it has done Nigeria, and abuse and exploit the place with no repercussions, while maintaining 'friendly relations' with the rest of China!

That's exactly what happens in Africa. We are exploited because we are politically divided.

Lastly, regional autonomy will be guaranteed in the federated Africa, so not a lot will change apart from the fact that strategic sectors like natural resources, the military, national security, economic policy and direction, will come under the responsibility of the Federal African government.

Ochi Agha said:

I support this, but not just yet. First we need to go back our pre-colonial states. Once that is done, then we can finally unite. We have to start from scratch.

Interesting point Ochi. As I see it, there is certainly a need for a re-alignment or reconfiguration of the various political entities we call 'nations'. The reconstituted entities will now form the ''states'' in the African federation.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this mentality/pursuit shows too much naivety, in my opinion. Sounds rather good on paper though.

Ghaddaffi must be proud~~

A very idealistic proposition with very little bearing on reality. We can hardly get a friggin LGA to work let alone a whole continent.

Ochi_Agha:

I support this, but not just yet. First we need to go back our pre-colonial states. Once that is done, then we can finally unite. We have to start from scratch.

If we start from scratch, we are done. The only reason UK can't push Nigeria around like France is doing to Ivory Coast is mass. Population and land-wise. Its also why China has been able to assert itself. The real problem is not pre-colonial states, its un-accountable politicians.

shotster50 said:

A very idealistic proposition with very little bearing on reality.  We can hardly get a friggin LGA to work let alone a whole continent.

If the Chinese had your mentality of ''we can hardly get one town to work talkless of'', they'd still be divided into scores of ''independent'' fiefdoms renowned for lecherousness, mutual suspicion, corruption and drunkenness, as they once were, before the ruling elite decided to unite them into a single nation with a common philosophy (Confucianism), which transformed the region in under a century.

So your logic is supremely flawed.

ROSSIKE and his "united" Africa message.

One language, now USA?

ROSSIKE:

shotster50 said:


If the Chinese had your mentality of ''we can hardly get one town to work talkless of'', they'd still be divided into scores of ''independent'' fiefdoms renowned for lecherousness, mutual suspicion, corruption and drunkenness, as they once were, before the ruling elite decided to unite them into a single nation with a common philosophy (Confucianism), which transformed the region in under a century.

So your logic is supremely flawed.

WHAT THE HECK? You seriously using the Chinese for an Example??    That is such a brain-dead example to use. This one goes beyond flawed logic . . gob!

Kobojunkie:

WHAT THE HECK? You seriously using the Chinese for an Example??    That is such a brain-dead example to use. This one goes beyond flawed logic . . gob!

The example is not flawed at all.The historical internal dissension between Chinese makes our squabbles look like child's play. We have one civil war, they have dozens. Their ethinicities are more diverse that what we have. Yet they are one stable country today.

birdman:

The example is not flawed at all.The historical internal dissension between Chinese makes our squabbles look like child's play. We have one civil war, they have dozens. Their ethinicities are more diverse that what we have. Yet they are one stable country today.

Why do you think it's a stable country?

birdman:

The example is not flawed at all.The historical internal dissension between Chinese makes our squabbles look like child's play. We have one civil war, they have dozens. Their ethinicities are more diverse that what we have. Yet they are one stable country today.

It is flawed and lame-brained because in order to get a unified China, the one you talk of today, millions of people had to be butchered/massacred/tortured/maimed . . .  leaving the remaining with no other choice but to submit to the whims of those who wanted one china.  The civil wars you refer to are probably those that came 1000's of years after the initial bloodbath that left most of the population debilitated and paralyzed by fear, after unification of China.

If the Chinese had your mentality of ''we can hardly get one town to work talkless of'', they'd still be divided into scores of ''independent'' fiefdoms renowned for lecherousness, mutual suspicion, corruption and drunkenness, as they once were, before the ruling elite decided to unite them into a single nation with a common philosophy (Confucianism), which transformed the region in under a century.

My analysis of your analysis is that you are most likely on some medication that keeps you in the real world which you have probably forgotten to take as usual.

It's only logical to use a sample model as a representation of an overall population and if Nigeria were taking as a microcosm of the African continent, it doesn't require too much intelligence for one to reason that the single largest problem we face is that of diversity and multiple ethnicity. . .and you my dumb friend says the best way to resolve this is to join economic ties with poorer, war torn zones, just in order to look big to the rest of the world?

You, my friend, are too dumb to be called a goat!

And it's high time you dumb árses stopped seeing China as a model country, the fact that they are better off economically than they were a few years ago doesn't make them a good example to emulate, China has the worst forms of human rights abuse known to man, i wouldn't want to live in a country where the government determines the colour of your undies, the Confucianism policy you preach recognizes women as lower creatures whose voices should never be heard in the public.

violent said:

It's only logical to use a sample model as a representation of an overall population and if Nigeria were taking as a microcosm of the African continent, it doesn't require too much intelligence for one to reason that the single largest problem we face is that of diversity and multiple ethnicity. . .and you my dumb friend says the best way to resolve this is to join economic ties with poorer, war torn zones, just in order to look big to the rest of the world?

I bet you think you've said something really smart.

First it's not about ''looking big to the rest of the world''. It is about BEING BIG, POWERFUL, INDEPENDENT, AND IN CONTROL OF OUR RESOURCES, AS WE SHOULD BE.

Secondly, Nigeria is NOT a microcosm of Africa.

Not in a thousand years it isn't.

Nigeria was created by exploitative Europeans in the 19th century who wielded a land of disparate peoples into an artificial construct -  a mere geographical expression as Chief Awolowo termed it - to serve as a huge raw materials source for their then burgeoning industries.

Only IF Nigeria was an internally generated political arrangement can you define it as a microcosm of Africa, NOT if it is an artificial, externally built super-imposition designed for the benefit of foreign powers.

Our problem is not a multiplicity of ethnicities. It only becomes a problem when it is insensitively, or criminally  managed, as was the case in the Scramble for Africa by European powers which led to its partition into 57 states with no regard for its ethnic complexities.

Powerful, indigenously generated empires like Mali, Ghana, Songhai, and Nubia, were all far bigger than Nigeria, all held a multitude of ethnicities, and all endured for several centuries in peace and prosperity.

Indigenously generated multi-ethnic states like those are what you can legitimately refer to as microcosms of Africa, NOT English-created Nigeria.

The call is for Africans to once again, INDIGENOUSLY generate a powerful government that will restore Africa to its rightful place as one of the world's MAJOR powers.

A place where a tiny, barren entity like France cannot come in, dictating who should be leading any patch of the African NATION.

violent said:

And it's high time you dumb árses stopped seeing China as a model country, the fact that they are better off economically than they were a few years ago doesn't make them a good example to emulate, China has the worst forms of human rights abuse known to man, i wouldn't want to live in a country where the government determines the colour of your undies, the Confucianism policy you preach recognizes women as lower creatures whose voices should never be heard in the public.

First, Grow Up and learn to engage in debate. Second no one here is ''preaching Confucianism policy''. China's adoption of that philosophy was based on their heritage. We can similarly scour OUR history to find a common uniting PHILOSOPHY that can serve to eliminate the corruption and societal vices that spring from philosophical barrenness.

Europe had the Protestant Work Ethic as their driving force, whose emphasis was on hardwork and thrift.

These ideas are drilled into the CHILDREN from early school, who then grow up to instinctively frown on vices detrimental to their society, like widespread corruption etc.

That's how it is done.

Africa needs the same social engineering.

Kobojunkie:

It is flawed because in order to get a unified China, the one you talk of today, millions of people had to be butchered/massacred/tortured/maimed . . .  leaving the remaining with no other choice but to submit to the whims of those who wanted one china.  

Whats the argument here? This actually supports my point. If China, with all that bloodletting could unite, why not we, with far less animosity.

The civil wars you refer to are probably those that came 1000's of years after the initial bloodbath that left most of the population debilitated and paralyzed by fear, after unification of China.

Ever heard of Taiwan? Yeah, that was the last civil war, only half a century old.

birdman:

Whats the argument here? This actually supports my point. If China, with all that bloodletting could unite, why not we, with far less animosity.

Ever heard of Taiwan? Yeah, that was the last civil war, only half a century old.

Are you intentionally ignoring the message here?  Please learn to REREAD if you feel you don't get it. The ONLY WAY China WAS ABLE TO UNITE WAS TO SHED BLOOD OF MILLIONS OF CHINESE, LEAVING THOSE ALIVE TOO PARALYZED WITH FEAR TO continue to resist the whims of the first emperor whose dream it was to unite china and killed as many as he could to get it too.

If you still do not get it, may I suggest you catch up on the History of the country you now know as China?

Kobojunkie, I see you modified your original post too to include insults. Are you insulting me because you are unable to make your case, or is this a handicap you have to live with? As soon as you grow up, maybe we'll have a mature discussion. Have fun arguing with yourself lol.

If you still do not get it, may I suggest you catch up on the History of the country you now know as China?

I knew Taiwan was China's last civil war, off the top of my head. You obviously didnt, or were so enamored with arguing baselessly (as you usually do) that you forgot. Take your own advice. Crack open a history book sometime.

My Post now includes an insult? JEEZZZ     . . . get over yoiurself ! Learn not to respond to posts you have little or no understanding of the message contained. If you have no clue what is being said, for pete's sake ASK, instead of dragging people down a path that has little or nothing to do with what is being addressed!

ROSSIKE:

shotster50 said:


If the Chinese had your mentality of ''we can hardly get one town to work talkless of'', they'd still be divided into scores of ''independent'' fiefdoms renowned for lecherousness, mutual suspicion, corruption and drunkenness, as they once were, before the ruling elite decided to unite them into a single nation with a common philosophy (Confucianism), which transformed the region in under a century.

So your logic is supremely flawed.

WHAT THE HECK? You seriously using the Chinese for an Example??    That is such a brain-dead example to use. This one goes beyond flawed logic  . . gob!

Ileke-IdI:

Why do you think it's a stable country?

They are stable because they understand their history. For example, China is not rushing headlong into democracy. Deep cultural divisions still exist, and their ethnic infighting make Nigerians look like saints. Their system of government accounts for their history.

birdman:

They are stable because they understand their history. For example, China is not rushing headlong into democracy. Deep cultural divisions still exist, and their ethnic infighting make Nigerians look like saints. Their system of government accounts for their history.

Nigeria has cultural divisions
Nigeria still exists
Nigeria has its own ethnic infighting
Nigeria knows her history
Nigeria's economy is growing

And abeg, Nigeria makes any country look like St. Country.
Can one say Nigeria is a stable country?

i would like to believe that individuals recommending for a United States of Africa aren't Nigerians and are probably from Republic of Somalia or whatever country looking to gain a massive boost from this ridiculously proposed union!. . . if not, why else would anyone recommend that a country doing well economically should mix its business with war driven poor countries, just to become bigger?. . . .that's got to qualify for the stupidest statement ever!

Countries like Ethopia, Niger, Central African Republic, Guniea Bissau, Somalia, Zimbabwe etc are too poor to offer anything economically and also in terms of military strength, so in the end, we stand to gain nothing besides numbers. . .who cares about numbers really?

problems in Nigeria has absolutely nothing to do with external drivers, so why should we find a need to become bigger?

This is a nice topic. I wish I had more time to comment on this discussion. Many people brought up some very good points. Good discussion. We need more discussions such of these.

Here is another angle to this . Some of those advocating for a United States of Africa also advocate for a splitting of Nigeria on grounds of ethnic differences. How in the world do you cause these two conflicting ideas to make sense?

violent:

i would like to believe that individuals recommending for a United States of Africa aren't Nigerians and are probably from Republic of Somalia or whatever country looking to gain a massive boost from this ridiculously proposed union!. . . if not, why else would anyone recommend that a country doing well economically should mix its business with war driven poor countries, just to become bigger?. . . .that's got to qualify for the stupidest statement ever!

Countries like Ethopia, Niger, Central African Republic, Guniea Bissau, Somalia, Zimbabwe etc are too poor to offer anything economically and also in terms of military strength, so in the end, we stand to gain nothing besides numbers. . .who cares about numbers really?

CAR's natural resources dwarf ours both in quantity and value. Joining them would add to us, not take away. Secondly, the ultimate source of wealth is ALWAYS land. Everything else is based on land. If it wasn't so, US wouldnt bother buying Alaska, Russia would abandon Siberia, and China let Tibet rot on its own. They wont, because its more than just economy. Its also about strategic value.

problems in Nigeria has absolutely nothing to do with external drivers, so why should we find a need to become bigger?

Agreed. But solving our internal problems is only one part of the equation. In a future multi-polar word, Africa needs an some kind of organization to rally behind.

Secondly, Nigeria is NOT a microcosm of Africa.

Not in a thousand years it isn't.

Nigeria was created by exploitative Europeans in the 19th century who wielded a land of disparate peoples into an artificial construct -  a mere geographical expression as Chief Awolowo termed it - to serve as a huge raw materials source for their then burgeoning industries.

Only IF Nigeria was an internally generated political arrangement can you define it as a microcosm of Africa, NOT if it is an artificial, externally built super-imposition designed for the benefit of foreign powers.

You should have checked up the meaning of microcosm before making this rather ignorant statement.

Nigeria is currently the largest black population, with most African culture and religious groups represented in a population of over 150 million people.    She has witnessed periods of Colonialism, military and civilian regimes, and  currently boast of the third highest nominal GDP in Africa.  One can easily study the political and social impacts of ethnic tensions without studying any other African countries besides Nigeria because her internal divisions often make as much of an impact as political boundaries do in other parts of Africa.

Second, with this great diversity, Nigeria also holds the distinction of being one of the only African countries to have had forced migration within its own borders. The mass migrations that occurred between Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (former Zaire) as ethnic violence waged on have also taken place within Nigeria. Much of this migration took place in relation to the Biafran civil war of the late 1960s, and many of these migrants ended up in the Jos Plateau region, giving it the most diverse population of anywhere else in the country, if not the entire continent.

birdman:

They are stable because they understand their history. For example, China is not rushing headlong into democracy. Deep cultural divisions still exist, and their ethnic infighting make Nigerians look like saints. Their system of government accounts for their history.

You should not have used China as your example. A better example would have been India. China is dominated by the Han who make up 80% of that country. Plus, Han culture is the dominant culture in all of China. Mandarin language unites the Chinese people, in which many of the lects have been discarded. China has a long history that is over 2000 thousand years old. Even the small ethnic groups have been influence by Han culture over the centuries.

India on other hand has plenty of cleavages, but their democracy is functioning.